On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:35:12 AM UTC-7, Jason Swails wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 07:57 -0800, af300wsm wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm a complete neophyte to the whole use of GNU > > autotools/automake/auto... . (I'm not sure what it should be called > > anymore.) Regardless, I'm porting a library project, for which I'm a > > team member, to using this toolset for building in Linux. I'm to the > > point now of writing the Makefile.am file for the actual library. > > (There are several other static libraries compiled first that are > > sucked into this shared object file.) > > > > I found some references here: > > http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/automake/manual/html_node/Python.html, > > which seemed to be just what I was after. However, I've got a big > > question about a file named "module.la" instead of "module.so" which is > > what we compile it to now. > > I certainly hope module.la is not what it gets compiled to. Open it up > with a text editor :). It's just basically a description of the library
Fascinating! This is all new territory for me. I'm used these tools for a number of years, of course, as I've run "./configure && make && make install" many times. Now things are starting to make more sense. > that libtool makes use of. In the projects that I build, the .la files > are all associated with a .a archive or a .so (/.dylib for Macs). > Obviously, static archives won't work for Python (and, in particular, I > believe you need to compile all of the objects as position independent > code, so you need to make sure the appropriate PIC flag is given to the > compiler... for g++ that would be -fPIC). We are compiling all of our code with -fPIC. I looked over the final build line and I see that a module.so was placed in .libs. I looked in that directory and actually the module is named "module.so.0.0.0" and there is a symbolic link "module.so" which points to that. This is cool stuff. Thanks for the clarification on things. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
